report on 2013 inspection of k. r. margetson ltd. · pdf filereport on 2013 inspection of k....

1666 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: (202) 207-9100 Facsimile: (202) 862-8433

www.pcaobus.org

Report on

2013 Inspection of K. R. Margetson Ltd. (Headquartered in Vancouver, Canada)

Issued by the

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

December 18, 2014

THIS IS A PUBLIC VERSION OF A PCAOB INSPECTION REPORT

PORTIONS OF THE COMPLETE REPORT ARE OMITTED FROM THIS DOCUMENT IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH

SECTIONS 104(g)(2) AND 105(b)(5)(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

PCAOB RELEASE NO. 104-2015-054A (Includes portions of Part II of the full report that

were not included in PCAOB Release No. 104-2015-054)

PCAOB Release No. 104-2015-054A

2013 INSPECTION OF K. R. MARGETSON LTD.

In 2013, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("PCAOB" or "the Board") conducted an inspection of the registered public accounting firm K. R. Margetson Ltd. ("the Firm"). The Board is issuing this report of that inspection in accordance with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("the Act").

The inspection process is designed, and inspections are performed, to provide a basis for assessing the degree of compliance by a firm with applicable requirements related to auditing issuers. The inspection process included reviews of aspects of selected issuer audits completed by the inspected firm. The reviews were intended to identify whether deficiencies existed in those aspects of the audits, and whether such deficiencies indicated weaknesses or defects in the firm's system of quality control over audits. In addition, the inspection included reviews of policies and procedures related to certain quality control processes of the firm that could be expected to affect audit quality.

The issuer audits and aspects of those audits inspected were selected based on

a number of risk-related and other factors. Due to the selection process, the deficiencies included in this report are not necessarily representative of the Firm's issuer audit practice.

The Board is making portions of the report publicly available. Specifically, the Board is releasing to the public Part I of the report and portions of Part IV of the report. Part IV of the report consists of the Firm's comments, if any, on a draft of the report.1

1 In its Statement Concerning the Issuance of Inspection Reports, PCAOB

Release No. 104-2004-001 (August 26, 2004), the Board described its approach to making inspection-related information publicly available consistent with legal restrictions. As described there, if the nonpublic portions of any inspection report discuss criticisms of or potential defects in a firm's system of quality control, those discussions also could eventually be made public, but only to the extent a firm fails to address the criticisms to the Board's satisfaction within 12 months of the issuance of the report.

PCAOB Release No. 104-2015-054A Inspection of K. R. Margetson Ltd.

December 18, 2014 Page 2

PART I

INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS

Members of the Board's inspection staff ("the inspection team") conducted primary procedures for the inspection from February 5, 2013 to February 8, 2013. These procedures were tailored to the nature of the Firm, certain aspects of which the inspection team understood at the outset of the inspection to be as follows:

Number of offices 1 (Vancouver, Canada)

Ownership structure Corporation

Number of partners 1

Number of professional staff2 3

Number of issuer audit clients3 9

2 "Professional staff" includes all personnel of the Firm, except partners or shareholders and administrative support personnel. The number of partners and professional staff is provided here as an indication of the size of the Firm, and does not necessarily represent the number of the Firm's professionals who participate in audits of issuers or are "associated persons" (as defined in the Act) of the Firm.

3 The number of issuer audit clients shown here is based on the Firm's self-reporting and the inspection team's review of certain information for inspection planning purposes. It does not reflect any Board determination concerning which, or how many, of the Firm's audit clients are "issuers" as defined in the Act. For information about audit reports issued by the Firm, see Item 4.1 of the Firm's annual reports on PCAOB Form 2, available at www.pcaobus.org.



A. Review of Audit Engagements

The inspection procedures included a review of aspects of the Firm's auditing of financial statements of two issuers. The inspection team identified what it considered to be audit deficiencies. The deficiencies identified in both of the audits reviewed included deficiencies of such significance that it appeared to the inspection team that the Firm, at the time it issued its audit report, had not obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support its opinion on the issuer's financial statements. Those deficiencies were –

Issuer A

(1) the Firm's failure to identify, or address appropriately, a departure from U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") that related to potentially material misstatements in the audited financial statements concerning the consolidation of subsidiaries as of a different year end than the issuer's reporting year end;

(2) the Firm's failure to identify, or to address appropriately, a departure from GAAP that related to a potentially material omission from the audited financial statements concerning disclosures related to goodwill; (3) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test revenue;

(4) the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation of assets acquired and liabilities assumed in business combinations, including the failure to perform required procedures in using the work of a specialist; and

(5) basing its opinion in part on the work and report of another auditor in circumstances where it was inappropriate to do so.

Issuer B

the failure to perform sufficient procedures to test the existence and valuation of an asset and a related obligation.



Two of the deficiencies described above related to auditing an aspect of an issuer's financial statements that the issuer revised in a restatement subsequent to the primary inspection procedures.4

B. Auditing Standards

Each deficiency described above relates to several applicable standards that govern the conduct of audits.

AU 230, Due Professional Care in the Performance of Work ("AU 230"), requires

the independent auditor to plan and perform his or her work with due professional care. AU 230 and PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 13, The Auditor's Responses to the Risks of Material Misstatement ("AS No. 13"), specify that due professional care requires the exercise of professional skepticism. This is an attitude that includes a questioning mind and a critical assessment of the appropriateness and sufficiency of audit evidence.

AS No. 13 requires the auditor to design and implement audit responses that

address the identified risks of material misstatement, and PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 15, Audit Evidence ("AS No. 15"), requires the auditor to plan and perform audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a reasonable basis for the audit opinion. Sufficiency is the measure of the quantity of audit evidence, and the quantity needed is affected by the risk of material misstatement and the quality of the audit evidence obtained. The appropriateness of evidence is measured by its quality; to be appropriate, evidence must be both relevant and reliable in support of the related conclusions.

Each deficiency described in Part I.A of this report involves, in the inspection

team's view, a failure to comply with one or more of the provisions cited above and also a failure to perform, or perform sufficiently, certain specific audit procedures that are required by other applicable auditing standards. The table below lists the other specific auditing standards that are primarily implicated by the deficiencies identified in Part I.A of this report.5

4 The Board inspection process did not include review of any additional

audit work related to the restatement. 5 This table does not necessarily include reference to every auditing

standard that may have been implicated by the deficiencies included in Part I.A.



PCAOB Auditing Standards Issuer AS No. 14, Evaluating Audit Results A

AU 328, Auditing Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures

A

AU 336, Using the Work of a Specialist A

AU 543, Part of Audit Performed by Other Independent Auditors

A

C. Review of Quality Control System

In addition to evaluating the quality of the audit work performed, the inspection

included review of certain of the Firm's practices, policies, and procedures related to audit quality. This review addressed practices, policies, and procedures concerning audit performance, training, compliance with independence standards, client acceptance and retention, and the establishment of policies and procedures. Any defects in, or criticisms of, the Firm's quality control system are discussed in the nonpublic portion of this report and will remain nonpublic unless the Firm fails to address them to the Board's satisfaction within 12 months of the date of this report.

D. General Information Concerning PCAOB Inspections

Board inspections are designed to identify whether weaknesses and deficiencies

exist related to how a firm conducts audits and addresses any such weaknesses and deficiencies. To achieve that goal, Board inspections include reviews of certain aspects of selected audits performed by the firm and reviews of other matters related to the firm's quality control system. The scope of the inspection procedures is determined according to the Board's criteria, and the firm is not allowed an opportunity to limit or influence the scope. The focus on weaknesses and deficiencies necessarily carries through to reports on inspections and, accordingly, Board inspection reports are not intended to serve as balanced report cards or overall rating tools. Further, the inclusion in an inspection report of certain deficiencies and potential deficiencies should not be construed as an indication that the Board has made any determination about other



aspects of the firm's systems, policies, procedures, practices, or conduct not included within the report.

In the course of reviewing aspects of selected audits, an inspection may identify

ways in which a particular audit is deficient, including failures by the firm to identify, or to address appropriately, respects in which an issuer's financial statements do not present fairly the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the issuer in conformity with GAAP, or, as applicable, International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board ("IFRS").6 It is not the purpose of an inspection, however, to review all of a firm's audits or to identify every respect in which a reviewed audit is deficient. Accordingly, a Board inspection report should not be understood to provide any assurance that the firm's audits, or its issuer clients' financial statements or reporting on internal control, are free of any deficiencies not specifically described in an inspection report.

In some cases, an inspection team's observation that a firm failed to perform a procedure may be based on the absence of documentation and the absence of persuasive other evidence, even if a firm claims to have performed the procedure. PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 3, Audit Documentation ("AS No. 3"), provides that, in various circumstances including PCAOB inspections, a firm that has not adequately documented that it performed a procedure, obtained evidence, or reached an appropriate conclusion must demonstrate with persuasive other evidence that it did so, and that oral assertions and explanations alone do not constitute persuasive other evidence. See AS No. 3, paragraph 9 and Appendix A to AS No. 3, paragraph A28. For purposes of the inspection, an observation that the Firm did not perform a procedure, obtain evidence, or reach an appropriate conclusion may be based on the absence of such documentation and the absence of persuasive other evidence.

6 When it comes to the Board's attention that an issuer's financial statements appear not to present fairly, in a material respect, the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the issuer in conformity with applicable accounting principles, the Board's practice is to report that information to the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission"), which has jurisdiction to determine proper accounting in issuers' financial statements. Any description in this report of financial statement misstatements or failures to comply with SEC disclosure requirements should not be understood as an indication that the SEC has considered or made any determination regarding these issues unless otherwise expressly stated.



Inclusion of a deficiency in an inspection report does not mean that the deficiency remained unaddressed after the inspection team brought it to the firm's attention. Under PCAOB standards, when audit deficiencies are discovered after the date of the audit report, a firm must take appropriate action to assess the importance of the deficiencies to the firm's present ability to support its previously expressed audit opinions.7 Depending upon the circumstances, compliance with these standards may require the firm to perform additional procedures, or to inform a client of the need for changes to its financial statements or reporting on internal control, or to take steps to prevent reliance on previously expressed audit opinions. A Board inspection does not typically include review of a firm's actions to address deficiencies identified in that inspection, but the Board expects that firms are attempting to take appropriate action, and firms frequently represent that they have taken, are taking, or will take, action. If, through subsequent inspections or other processes, the Board determines that the firm failed to take appropriate action, that failure may be grounds for a Board disciplinary sanction.

END OF PART I

7 See AU 390, Consideration of Omitted Procedures After the Report Date ("AU 390"), and AU 561, Subsequent Discovery of Facts Existing at the Date of the Auditor's Report ("AU 561") (both included among the PCAOB's interim auditing standards, pursuant to PCAOB Rule 3200T).



PORTIONS OF THE REST OF THIS REPORT ARE NONPUBLIC AND ARE OMITTED FROM THIS PUBLIC DOCUMENT



PART II * * * * B. Issues Related to Quality Controls

The inspection of the Firm included consideration of aspects of the Firm's system of quality control.8 QC 20, System of Quality Control for a CPA Firm's Accounting and Auditing Practice, provides that an auditing firm has a responsibility to ensure that its personnel comply with the applicable professional standards. This standard specifies that a firm's system of quality control should encompass the following elements: (1) independence, integrity, and objectivity; (2) personnel management; (3) acceptance and continuance of clients and engagements; (4) engagement performance; and (5) monitoring.

Assessment of a firm's quality control system rests both on review of a firm's

stated quality control policies and procedures and on inferences that can be drawn from identified deficiencies in audit performance. These deficiencies, whether alone or when aggregated, may indicate areas where a firm's system has failed to provide reasonable assurance of quality in the performance of audits. Even deficiencies that do not result in an insufficiently supported audit opinion may indicate a defect in a firm's quality control system.9 Defects in a firm's quality control system may also be identified through inspection procedures that are specifically focused on aspects of the firm's system of quality control.

8 This report's description of quality control issues is based on the

inspection team's observations during the primary inspection procedures. Any changes or improvements that the Firm may have made in its system of quality control since that time may not be reflected in this report, but will be taken into account by the Board during the 12-month remediation process following the issuance of this report.

9 Not every audit deficiency suggests a possible defect in a firm's quality control system, and this report does not discuss every audit deficiency the inspection team identified.



Audit Performance A firm's system of quality control should provide reasonable assurance that the

work performed on an audit engagement will meet applicable professional standards and regulatory requirements. On the basis of the information reported by the inspection team, including the audit performance deficiencies described in Part II.A (and summarized in Part I.A) and any other deficiencies identified below, the Board has concerns that the Firm's system of quality control fails to provide such reasonable assurance in at least the following respects –

a. Testing Appropriate to the Audit

The Firm's system of quality control appears not to provide sufficient assurance that the Firm will conduct all testing appropriate to a particular audit, specifically with respect to the following issues:

(i) Year End of Subsidiaries

As discussed above, in one of the audits reviewed, the inspection team identified

a significant deficiency related to the Firm's failure to identify, or to address appropriately, a departure from GAAP that related to potentially material misstatements in the audited financial statements concerning the consolidation of subsidiaries as of a different year end than the issuer's year end. This information provides cause for concern regarding the Firm's quality control policies and procedures related to the Firm's auditing of consolidating information. [Issuer A]

(ii) Revenue

As discussed above, in one of the audits reviewed, the inspection team identified significant deficiencies related to the Firm's testing of revenue. This information provides cause for concern regarding the Firm's quality control policies and procedures related to the Firm's auditing of revenue. [Issuer A]

(iii) Business Combinations

As discussed above, in one of the audits reviewed, the inspection team identified significant deficiencies related to the Firm's testing of business combinations. This



information provides cause for concern regarding the Firm's quality control policies and procedures related to the Firm's testing of business combinations. [Issuer A]

(iv) Goodwill Disclosures

As discussed above, in one of the audits reviewed, the inspection team identified a significant deficiency related to the Firm's failure to identify, or to address appropriately, a departure from GAAP that related to a potentially material omission from the audited financial statements concerning disclosures related to goodwill. This information provides cause for concern regarding the Firm's quality control policies and procedures related to the Firm's testing of disclosures. [Issuer A]

(v) Use of the Work and Report of Another Auditor

As discussed above, in one of the audits reviewed, the inspection team identified a significant deficiency related to the Firm's use of the work and report of another auditor. This information provides cause for concern regarding the Firm's quality control policies and procedures related to the Firm's use of the work and reports of other auditors. [Issuer A]

(vi) Existence and Valuation of a Mineral Asset and a Related Obligation

As discussed above, in one of the audits reviewed, the inspection team identified a significant deficiency related to the Firm's testing of the existence and valuation of a mineral asset and a related obligation. This information provides cause for concern regarding the Firm's quality control policies and procedures related to the Firm's testing of the existence and valuation of mineral assets and related obligations. [Issuer B]

b. Engagement Quality Review

Questions exist about the effectiveness of the Firm's system of quality control

with respect to the execution of engagement quality reviews in compliance with PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 7, Engagement Quality Review ("AS No. 7"). An engagement quality review performed with due care in compliance with AS No. 7 should have detected, and resulted in the Firm addressing, the deficiency related to testing the existence and valuation of a mineral asset and a related obligation described in Part II.A. [Issuer B] In addition, in one of the engagements reviewed, the Firm failed to



obtain the required engagement quality review for the audit and failed to obtain engagement quality reviews with respect to reviews of interim financial information. [Issuer A] * * * *



PART IV

RESPONSE OF THE FIRM TO DRAFT INSPECTION REPORT

Pursuant to section 104(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7214(f), and PCAOB Rule 4007(a), the Firm provided a written response to a draft of this report. Pursuant to section 104(f) of the Act and PCAOB Rule 4007(b), the Firm's response, minus any portion granted confidential treatment, is attached hereto and made part of this final inspection report.10

10 The Board does not make public any of a firm's comments that address a

nonpublic portion of the report unless a firm specifically requests otherwise. In some cases, the result may be that none of a firm's response is made publicly available. In addition, pursuant to section 104(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7214(f), and PCAOB Rule 4007(b), if a firm requests, and the Board grants, confidential treatment for any of the firm's comments on a draft report, the Board does not include those comments in the final report at all. The Board routinely grants confidential treatment, if requested, for any portion of a firm's response that addresses any point in the draft that the Board omits from, or any inaccurate statement in the draft that the Board corrects in, the final report.

report on 2013 inspection of k. r. margetson ltd. · pdf filereport on 2013 inspection of k....

Documents